Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14, 16-20, 22, 24, and 28-30, as originally filed 27 FEB. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows (note: cancelled claims —such as 25-27— can be grouped, such as “25-27. (Cancelled)”):
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “Group II including claims 16- 20, 22, 24, and 28-30, drawn to a polymer foam body… without traverse” in the reply filed on
27 FEB. 26 is acknowledged.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 9-12 and 14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on
27 FEB. 26 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023 and 01/26/2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
FIG(s) 4: reference characters “412” and “414” not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings 37 CFR 1.84 (p)(5)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16-20, 22, 24, and 28-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 16 ln. 3-4: the recitation(s) of ”a first multitude of netting shapes”, “a second multitude of netting shapes”, “a first multitude of body shapes”, and “a second multitude of body shapes” is/are vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear as to how the metes and bounds of the claim can be properly ascertained, as these phrase appears to encompass shapes not specifically contemplated by the disclosure. It is suggested to use the phrase --plurality-- in place of “multitude” and the claims have been interpreted as such.
Claims 17-20, 22, 24, and 28-30 not particularly referenced in this section are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 16-20, 22, 24, and 28-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertz et al. US 10239228 B2 (Hertz) in view of Martinez US 5058345 A.
As per claim 16 Hertz teaches a building element comprising a material body (blocks B, FIG. 2) and a reinforcement netting (bars R, FIG. 2) affixed to a first side of the body (blocks B, FIG. 2), the reinforcement netting (bars R, FIG. 2) being shaped in a first [[multitude]] --plurality-- of netting shapes (see squares defined by bars R, FIG. 2) having a first netting level (see level of squares, FIG. 2) the first side (top side of B, FIG. 2) of the body (blocks B, FIG. 2) is shaped in a first [[multitude]] --plurality-- of body shapes (see “longitudinal sides 16...diverge outwards in direction from the top face” 3:14; see also FIG. 2) having a first body level (top face 15, FIG. 2) and a second [[multitude]] --plurality-- of body shapes (recesses 17, 19, FIG. 2) having a second body level (see level of recesses 17, 19, FIG. 2).
Hertz fails to explicitly disclose:
polymer foam
the netting having the first netting level and a second [[multitude]] --plurality-- of netting shapes having a second netting level, wherein:
the netting is affixed to the body by at least part of the first [[multitude]] --plurality-- of netting shapes being affixed to at least part of the first [[multitude]] --plurality-- of body shapes at the first side of the body; and
at least part of the netting protrudes from the building element at the first side of the building element.
Martinez teaches an obvious building material well-known for being used in a manner similar to Hertz, specifically:
polymer foam (“cellular polyurethane or polystyrene” Cl. 11)
the netting having the first netting level (see level at peaks of 108, FIG. 1, 5) and a second [[multitude]] --plurality-- of netting shapes having a second netting level (see unidentified lower level opposite peaks, FIG. 1), wherein:
the netting is affixed to the body by at least part of the first [[multitude]] --plurality-- of netting shapes being affixed (see “embedded in spaced apart rows” 5:4) to at least part of the first [[multitude]] --plurality-- of body shapes at the first side (top surface 104 of core 102, FIG. 1, 5) of the body; and
at least part of the netting protrudes (see peaks of 108, FIG. 1) from the building element at the first side of the building element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Hertz by substituting the foam as taught by Martinez in order to construct the blocks of a lighter material and thereby allow for a lighter resulting assembly which would facilitate transportation and installation.
As per claim 17 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Martinez further discloses a first difference between the first body level (top of 102, FIG. 1) and the second body level (“two opposing major surfaces 104, 106.” 4:37) is different from a second difference between the first netting level (see level at peaks of 108, FIG. 1, 5) and the second netting level (see unidentified lower level opposite peaks, FIG. 1), such that a space (see space below peaks at 108, FIG. 1-2) is provided between the first side (top surface 104 of core 102, FIG. 1, 5) of the body and the netting (114, 112, FIG., 1) at locations of one of the first body level and the second body level (“two opposing major surfaces 104, 106.” 4:37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Hertz in view of Martinez and by including the wires at a spaced distance from the subjacent composite member as taught by Martinez in order to allow for increased composite action by ensuring the wires and the subjacent member each engage the concrete.
As per claim 18 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 17, and Martinez further discloses wherein the first difference is less than the second difference, such that the space (see space below peaks at 108, FIG. 1-2) is provided between the first side (top surface 104 of core 102, FIG. 1, 5) of the body and the netting at locations of the second body level (“two opposing major surfaces 104, 106.” 4:37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Hertz in view of Martinez by including the wires at a spaced distance from the subjacent composite member as taught by Martinez in order to ensure increased composite when the peaks engage the concrete.
As per claim 19 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Martinez further discloses the netting is affixed to the body by a part of the netting being embedded in the body (see “embedded in spaced apart rows” 5:4) at the first side (top surface 104 of core 102, FIG. 1, 5) of the body and part of the netting protruding from the body (see rods 108 protruding, FIG. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Hertz in view of Martinez by including the positioning of the bars where the lower portion is embedded in the foam as taught by Martinez in order to increase composite action along the length of the block.
As per claim 20 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Martinez further discloses the netting is affixed to the body by means of a binding agent (see “To this end, there is applied a layer of a bonding agent to bond the insulating core elements to the components of the wire mesh framework and, to some degree, to provide a moisture barrier.” 1:61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Hertz in view of Martinez by including the adhesive as taught by Martinez in order to promote adhesion of the wire within the foam to decrease the likelihood of disassembly during use.
As per claim 22 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Hertz further discloses at least one of the body shapes and the netting are shaped in a single dimension (see FIG. 2).
As per claim 24 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Hertz further discloses at least one of the body shapes and the netting have a trapezoid shape (see FIG. 2; blocks B are recognized as having an at least somewhat “trapezoid shape” because it has a flat top and straight sloped sides).
As per claim 28 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Hertz further discloses the netting (bars R, FIG. 2) comprises a first set of parallel wires and a second set of parallel wires (see wires parallel in the direction of L and/or W, FIG. 2).
As per claim 29 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 28, and Hertz further discloses the wires of the first set are perpendicular to the second set (see FIG. 2).
As per claim 30 Hertz in view of Martinez teaches the limitations according to claim 28, and Martinez further discloses the netting shapes are shaped in a single dimension and the shapes are provided by only shaping the first set of parallel wires (see FIG. 1, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Hertz in view of Martinez by including the wires having one shaped wire as taught by Martinez in order to achieve a desired composite action in relation to the subjacent members.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In FIG. 3 below, HILLERS GUILLAUME EUGENE EP 0425057 A1 teaches a foundation panel of foam block material into which a metal wire mesh is wholly or partially sunk and protrudes therefrom
PNG
media_image1.png
650
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635